TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (3) TMI 316
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....funds have to be filed under section 11B of the Central Act, 1944 and no suo motu refund/credit of duty can be taken unless and until assessee satisfy that the incidence of duty has not been passed on to third party ? C. Whether refund has to pass through the Doctrine of unjust enrichment, even if it is not so expressly provided for in the statutes ?" Shortly stated, facts are as follows: Respondent-manufacturer had paid basic duty of excise of Rs.3,58,000/- for 30 different invoices for the period between 2.4.07 and 13.4.07. On such basic duty, the respondent also paid VAT at the rate of 3%. Subsequently, however, realizing that it was required to pay VAT at the rate of 12.5%, subsequent invoice was raised and also paid differential amou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Such corrected RG 23A Part-II was submitted before the authorities along with the returns required to be filed by the assessee. As such it can be clearly seen that the said correction was only rectifying the clerical mistake result of the arithmetical error. To err is human and some via media to rectify such errors is required to be arrived at. Where the entires are made incorrectly and there is no dispute about the same, correction of such entries is only arithmetical, not requiring any lis between the parties. To take a technical view that even in such cases where admitted wrong entries are made and are rectified immediately thereafter, an assessee is required to file refund application is to shake the assessee's faith in the judicia....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e. As held and observed by the Tribunal, the respondent had already paid excise duty of Rs.3.58 lacs. Part of the VAT was not paid. While paying difference, the respondent erroneously once over paid the excise duty of Rs.3.58 lacs. This mistake was detected shortly thereafter and before the end of the month, the respondent made necessary entries in the Cenvat Register and corrected the mistake. The Tribunal only viewed it as an arithmetical error which the respondent was authorized to correct. In so far as the finding of the Tribunal that basic excise duty of Rs.3.58 lacs was already paid by the respondent earlier and it was repaid while depositing the differential VAT duty was concerned, the Department has not raised any serious objection....